MIG Reports analysis shows interesting trends in perceptions of Kamala Harris—specifically of her rise in popularity since taking over the Democratic presidential nomination. Online conversations reveal various sentiments among American voters with questions and critiques about her political standing and the dynamics of her approval ratings.

Independents

Discussion Trends

Independent voters often not the sudden shift in approval for Kamala Harris, with many questioning the reasons and timing of this change. They scrutinize her sudden approval swing spearheaded by the media and Democratic Party pundits, asking: why now?

This group speculates about the factors influencing Harris’s sudden increase in support. Many express skepticism, suggesting the soaring approval reported by Democrats and some polls may stem from manipulated narratives or strategic political maneuvers rather than genuine grassroots support.

Many in this voter group are concerned about Harris’s economic understanding and leadership capabilities. Words like "delusional," "basic economy," and "make America worse" communicate a strong disapproval of her leadership. People express a lack of faith in Harris’s ability to address critical issues like inflation.

Other recurring themes suggest she was “installed," in the nomination since she did not receive a single primary vote. Some call this idea "disgusting," indicating a belief that her rise violates norms of the democratic process. These suspicions further fuel cynicism about the sudden sea-change in Harris’s public approval.

Sentiment Trends

Independent voters are doubtful, expressing some hostility and anger, with very few supportive comments. The general tone is frustration with Harris’s lack of competence and the media and Democrats’ unwillingness to acknowledge her shortcomings. Many in this group fear drastically negative consequences if Harris is elected. People speculate about the "end of America," expressing the intensity of their concerns.

Many Independents point out the fact that Harris was deeply unpopular—even in her own party—just months ago. They cite the fact that her presidential campaign for the 2020 Democratic nomination ended in 2019 because of her unpopularity. Harris’s approval ratings have also been abysmal, along with Joe Biden’s, throughout their administration.

Someone just sent this to me. It's from 2021. I never saw it before. Jimmy Dore is awesome.

I remember posting this video, it got millions of views and even liberals were bashing Kamala in the comments. Susan Sarandon even commented that Kamala is a fraud.😂

Kamala is so fake. pic.twitter.com/b88ZccEjug

— MAZE (@mazemoore) August 15, 2024

Some recognize the political elite's influence in Harris’s rise to the top of the Democratic ticket. Others prefer to move forward and focus on criticizing the effectiveness of her policies. Both attack avenues reveal widespread unease in segments of the electorate regarding Democratic leadership, direction, and policy proposals.

Harris as a polarizing figure. While there are discussions of a perceived popularity surge, skepticism prevails. There are many Independents who are so archly opposed to Trump that criticism of Harris may fall by the wayside. But skepticism about how Democratic leaders use power and the extremism of Harris’s policies does not go unnoticed. 

Democrats

Democrat voters have a diverse and evolving sentiment toward Kamala Harris, particularly as they reflect on leadership’s claims of her popularity within the party. Current conversations highlight a noticeable approval swing, prompting many to question its origins and the timing of this shift. Voter sentiment oscillates between admiration for her campaign capabilities and concerns regarding her performance in various vice-presidential responsibilities.

Pro-Kamala Means: She Isn’t Biden or Trump

Much of the positive sentiment toward Harris hinges on her opposition to Donald Trump. When contrasted with their perception of Trump, many Democrats express belief in her ability to articulate a coherent and positive message. They view this as stark contrast to what they describe as Trump’s "verbal diarrhea" and racist ravings.

Democrats talk about Harris’s "message," "narrative," and "crowds,” praising her chances to defeat Trump a second time. Supporters emphasize Harris’s large audiences at campaign rallies compared to accusations of thing crowds at Trump’s events. This pattern indicates a strategic narrative casting Harris as a dynamic, engaging candidate capable of rallying support, which seems crucial in recalibrating public approval.

Just six months ago, anti-establishment figure and comedian Jimmy Dore gained 2 million views on commentary videos mocking Vice President Harris. This criticism of her image and inconsistencies was a common trend, even among Democrats, since the 2020 Democratic primaries.

However, since Joe Biden’s withdrawal, Democratic voters have received an infusion of energy and enthusiasm. Following the first presidential debate between Biden and Trump, the Democratic Party was in despair at Biden’s plummeting odds. Replacing Biden with Harris has served to reenergize the base and incentivize those who criticized her in the past to find new admiration for their nominee.

Calcifying Racial Classes

Recent endorsements, such as from the Culinary Union in Nevada, further enhance Harris’s standing among Party loyalists. These endorsements serve as validation points that resonate with the demographic diversity of the voter base, including Latino, Black, AAPI, and immigrant communities. Harris's backing from significant organizations plays a role in enhancing her credibility and appeal among partisans.

Discourse also focuses on the claimed policy successes of the Biden-Harris administration. Supporters highlight improvements in agricultural commerce, which they claim stem from Democratic policies. The base touts Biden-Harris achievements as an antidote to perceived failures of Trump’s administration.

Sentiment Trends

Democratic sentiment trends reflect both enthusiasm and a sense of urgency as the election approaches. Supporters express a commitment to voter mobilization, with calls to action like "get off the couch and vote." The phrase "voting" alongside emotive language about unity among underrepresented groups reinforces an atmosphere of collective urgency.

Despite the positivity across many factions of the Democratic base, some skepticism and critique remain. This manifests in discussions questioning Harris’s presence on certain media platforms, with adversarial commentary about how she presents herself to different audiences.

There are some pockets of Democrats who say they cannot support Harris, including some politicians in red or purple districts. This group seems reluctant to forget why she was deeply unpopular until just a few weeks ago. They also highlight the fact that, as America learns more about her economic proposals, moderates and free market capitalists will remain opposed.

Sheehy’s Growing Momentum Among Montana Voters

Tim Sheehy, a political newcomer and decorated Navy SEAL, has gained traction in his Montana Senate race against the three-term incumbent Jon Tester. MIG Reports data shows Sheehy leads Tester in both approval and support. His lead is corroborated by a recent NonStop Local poll.

Tester has represented Montana for nearly two decades. This shift in voter sentiment reveals a growing dissatisfaction with Tester's performance, along with national disapproval of Democrats, on issues like inflation, taxes, and border security.

Voter conversations in Montana show increasing frustrations at Tester's alignment with leftist policies—despite his refusal to endorse Kamala Harris and his decision to skip the DNC. People use phrases like “Tester is a communist” and accuse him of “furthering socialist policies,” MIG Reports data shows.

This sentiment is pushing voters toward Sheehy, who they view as “America First” and upholding traditional values. Supporters describe Sheehy as a leader who embodies “freedom” and “patriotism,” contrasting him with their view of Tester as detached from Montana’s heritage.

• In the last 15 days, approval for Tester and Sheehy has fluctuated. In the past three days, Sheehy regained a lead of 51% to 49%. The shift comes on the heels of Sheehy’s rally with Donald Trump in Bozeman last Friday.
• Overall positive sentiment toward Sheehy in the last month has averaged 48% compared to Tester’s 46%.

The National Significance of Sheehy’s Senate Bid

The outcome of the Montana Senate race carries national implications. Sheehy is leading according to MIG Reports data and some polls. Tester's plan to skip the Democratic National Convention is also raising eyebrows. This draws attention to tight down-ballot races as the Harris-Walz campaign continues to get battered on economic issues and the border, and given Democrats’ slim Senate majority.

The incoming administration will need Congressional support, and economic struggles and the unpopularity of the Biden-Harris administration’s open border are putting incumbent down-ballot democrats like Tester in jeopardy. A Sheehy victory would not only flip a crucial Senate seat but signal a shift in voter sentiment by unseating an incumbent who has been in office since 2006.

For Republicans, winning Montana could be a key step in regaining control of the Senate. Sheehy’s success in connecting with voters on issues like the economy, border security, and housing highlights the broader dissatisfaction with Democratic governance, particularly in rural states.

As one voter put it, “We need someone who understands Montana values, not Washington politics.”

Important Voter Issues

Economic Concerns Drive Support for Sheehy

Americans across the country are deeply worried about inflation and taxes — and Montana voters are not exempt. Many blame Tester for contributing to the inflation crisis, complaining about rising prices, and increased property taxes. Tester's association with the Biden administration further fuels this narrative as voters place their financial struggles at Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’s feet.

Tim Sheehy has capitalized on these concerns by positioning himself as the candidate who will bring economic relief. His background as a successful businessman lends credibility to his promises to lower taxes and stimulate economic growth. Voters who are disillusioned with Tester's handling of the economy see Sheehy as someone who can steer Montana back to prosperity.

Some critics call Sheehy “self-serving” or acting out of personal interest rather than genuine concern for Montana. But the overarching sentiment is dissatisfaction with Tester and willingness to give Sheehy a chance to prove himself. Donald Trump’s recent press conference on the economy and Kamala Harris’s scandalous plans for price controls are also helping push Republican momentum nationwide.

Housing

Housing affordability is another pressing issue in Montana, where rising costs are impacting residents statewide. Voters express anger over what they see as Tester's failure to address the housing crisis. Sheehy counters as a catalyst for change—though some critics are skeptical of his ability to tackle these issues with a struggling national economy.

Voters in Montana and nationwide blame Biden-Harris policies for sustained high housing costs. People talk about skyrocketing rents, increased property taxes, and poor solutions from politicians. Specific phrases like "housing costs doubled" and "property taxes rose 22%" underscore the dire situation many Montanans feel they are facing.

Border Security

Border security is another critical issue in the Montana Senate race, echoing national concerns about illegal immigration. Many Montanans accuse Tester of supporting “open borders,” which contributes to economic strain and public safety risks. Broadly, voters are angry at Tester and Democrats’ lax stance on immigration. They believe partisan policies endanger their communities and waste taxpayer dollars.

Sheehy has made border security a central theme of his campaign, promising to uphold “Montana values” by enforcing stricter immigration controls. His supporters believe he will prioritize secure borders and take a hard stance against illegal immigration.

This issue is particularly resonant in Montana, where voters are increasingly concerned about illegal immigrants flying in from border and sanctuary states. The country’s northern border, which is also a vector for illegal immigration and drug and human trafficking, is an under-discussed factor Montanans feel acutely.

Sheehy’s tough talk on immigration appeals to voters fed up with Democratic failures. However, like with other issues, there is a smaller group who question whether Sheehy’s rhetoric will translate into effective action.

Cultural Issues

Cultural issues are growing contentious, and many believe Tester has drifted too far from Montana's traditional values. People say Tester is aligned with “leftist policies” and “socialist ideas,” with some voters even labeling him a “communist.” More conservative voters in rural states also express strong objections to LGBTQ issues like gender ideology and child sex changes. Democrats like Tester aligning with liberal social issues makes voters view them as more attuned to the priorities of Washington, D.C. and far-left progressives.

In contrast, voters view Tim Sheehy as a defender of Montana’s conservative values. His supporters praise him for standing up for freedom and families. They appreciate his military background and commitment to the principles they believe define Montana. Sheehy’s focus on protecting individual liberties, including parents’ rights, and MIG Reports data shows promoting traditional family values resonates with Montanans.

Social media reactions to Joe Biden's statement to the press, "My policies are working. Start writing that way, OK?" are overwhelmingly critical. Americans express significant frustration and cynicism about Biden’s meaning. Many perceive this remark as an attempt to dictate media narratives rather than addressing substantive issues affecting the economy—especially inflation on Biden’s watch.

Reporter asks about inflation.

President Biden: "I told you you're going to have a soft landing...my policies are working. Start writing that way, okay?" pic.twitter.com/sHebANBv06

— CSPAN (@cspan) August 14, 2024

More Than a Feeling

Critics accuse Biden of trying to direct the mainstream media to spin the narrative in his administration’s favor. Phrases like propaganda, media manipulation, and censorship frequently appear in conversations. People express outrage at what they see as a blatant attempt to control the media's reporting on Biden's policies.

American feel that, rather than focusing on fixing the economy, Biden is more concerned with how he is perceived. This appears disingenuous to voters, revealing how far out of touch Biden is with the struggles of ordinary Americans.

The Emperor's New Clothes Narrative

A dominant theme in the criticism is America’s consistently escalating inflation issues. Voters highlight the disconnect between Biden's claim that his policies are working and the economic realities they face. Many point to rising prices and stagnant wages as evidence his policies are not working at all.

Terms like inflation crisis, out of touch, and government failure encapsulate the prevailing negative sentiment. Reactions suggest widespread frustration with the administration's lack of effort to fix the economy, particularly the perception that Biden is attempting to shift blame rather than take responsibility.

Voters feel betrayed by Biden's focus on media narratives, while ignoring the real economic pain people feel in day-to-day life. There is anger that, instead of addressing these concerns head-on, the president is trying to influence how his policies are reported. Criticism is harsh as people call Biden tone-deaf and say he's only interested in appearances and maintaining popularity.

The Myth of an Independent Media

Americans also harbor deep suspicions toward the media. They engage vigorously in conversations about the growing subservience of the media to partisan narratives. Many believe the media has lost any appearance of an independent stance. This is demonstrated in Stephen Colbert’s studio audience laughing when he sincerely said CNN is “objective” and “reports the news as it is.”

Stephen Colbert trying to say CNN is objective only to have his own crowd laugh at him is objectively funny. pic.twitter.com/kQ8yCPdg16

— Dave Portnoy (@stoolpresidente) August 13, 2024

Online conversations often mention certain keywords together like:

• Media
• Government
• Obedience
• Bias
• Corruption

People express sentiments of distrust towards the media, suggesting it aligns too closely with Democratic talking points. Many view the media as liberal, biased, and consistently lying to them. They vocalize a belief that media entities are complicit in supporting Biden’s agenda rather than providing objective reporting.

Public sentiment is heavily skeptical regarding the media’s integrity and independence from Democratic influence.

Kamala Harris faces a complex fracture within the Democratic Party between more traditional, pro-Israel Democrats and progressive, pro-Palestine activists. These tensions in her voter base are generating conversations about whether antisemitism is an ingrained part of progressivism.

Two recent situations have inflamed these discussions. One is speculation that Harris passed over Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro as her VP pick because he is Jewish. The other contentious incident is Harris’s response to rally attendees who interrupted her campaign speech with pro-Palestine rhetoric.

These events, combined with ongoing intra-party disagreements about the Isarel-Hamas conflict, cause many to ask if the Democratic Party has a problem with antisemitism. Liberal political analyst Van Jones surprised people by saying on CNN that antisemitism has become “marbled into” the Party.

Van Jones admits that Kamala picking Walz was her "caving in to some of these darker parts in the party" in terms of appeasing "anti-Jewish bigots" that have "gotten marbled into this party." pic.twitter.com/UTspmYkFfF

— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) August 6, 2024

Kamala Shushes Hamas Protesters

Conflict exacerbated the controversy when pro-Palestine demonstrators interrupted Kamala Harris during a campaign speech, decrying her stance on Israel. Her response—which some viewed as her true colors—caused a flurry of reactions.

Harris said, “You know what, if you want Donald Trump to win then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking,” then continuing to glare at protestors for nearly 30 seconds. Some pro-Israel Democrats applaud her for maintaining composure and control. Progressives criticize her for treating the protesters dismissively.

🚨 Kamala Harris SNAPS on Pro-Palestine protesters accusing her of supporting Genocide in Gaza: “You know what, if you want Donald Trump to win then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking”

pic.twitter.com/bFcSKbbzDL

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) August 8, 2024

Sentiment trends among Democrats show a mix of disappointment, anger, and criticism. Anti-Israel activists feel Harris is not doing enough to resolve the crisis in Gaza and is too closely aligned with Israel. This group accuses her being complicit in war crimes or supportive of genocide against Palestinians.

Harris’s recent statements about the need for a ceasefire draw accusations of hypocrisy while she continues to support Israel’s right to self-defense. Progressives view her as aligned with Israeli interests. They cite her unwillingness to impose an arms embargo and her dismissal of pro-Palestinian activists.

However, Harris also faces accusations from pro-Israel voters of being aligned with anti-Israel extremists in her base. They claim she is compliant with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which is moving further left. This group tends to allege Harris bypassed Josh Shapiro as her running mate due to his pro-Israel stance. They say antisemites on the far left would have created too much havoc and she caved to their threats.

Pro-Israel Democrats are not convinced that Harris’s response to protesters was due to disagreement. They point out that she did not reprimand them by saying they are wrong, but rather, if they say it, Trump will win. Some infer Harris has deeper sympathies with far-left progressives but is attempting to tamp down their rhetoric because she needs moderate votes.

Does Antisemitism Define Modern Democrats?

Many overserves on both sides of the political aisle express suspicions that Harris chose Tim Walz over Josh Shapiro to avoid conflict within her Party. There are frequent speculations that progressive backlash overs Shapiro’s Jewish background would have negated any political advantage he offered.

The decision to sideline Shapiro, critics claim, highlights the growing influence of anti-Israel sentiments on Party leaders. Many even suggest the issue is deeper than political or humanitarian opposition to Israel. They suggest the growing strain of anti-Israel rhetoric is driven by a more sinister ideological and religious bigotry—antisemitism.

They also express distrust in Harris's judgment, suggesting her choice of Walz confirms a preference for far-left socialism over moderation. This is particularly alarming to those wary of the Democratic Socialists of America gaining influence. Moderate Democrats cite fears Harris and Walz would enact extreme progressive policies. They fear continued open borders, defunding the police, and Green New Deal-like economic upheavals.

Many view the ideological struggle over Israel versus Palestine as a microcosm of a larger battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. There are feelings that a clash between pragmatic governance and aspirational, ideal-driven policies divide the Party.

This intra-party divide suggests that Harris's candidacy, despite base support, faces intense scrutiny. The balancing act she must perform between retaining progressive support and appealing to a broader electorate is crucial as the election approaches. The sensitive issues of Israel and Palestine will likely be a significant factor in attracting or losing votes.

MIG Reports analysis shows recent online discussion about Democratic VP nominee Tim Walz’s liberal political record is corroborated by:

• Speeches given by Governor Tim Walz's between 2019-2024
• His recent first speech as vice-presidential nominee
• Pattern analysis of his record as a Congress member from 2007-2019

Online discourse and an analysis of previous speeches, determining Walz’s historical rhetoric and policy focus, confirms voter perceptions of his left-leaning platform. The analysis shows a clear shift toward more liberal and progressive positions during Walz’s political career.

In early speeches and actions, Walz took a more centrist, bipartisan approach, particularly in his early years as governor and his time in Congress. He emphasized working across the aisle on issues like veterans' affairs, agriculture, and rural economic development—areas traditionally seen as more moderate or centrist. Throughout his tenure, however, there is a noticeable leftward shift, particularly in his stance on social issues, economic policy, environmental concerns, and public safety.

How Voters View Walz

Current voter understanding of Tim Walz is shaped by significant online criticism of his “extremely liberal” politics. People discuss allegations of "stolen valor" for exaggerating his military rank and combat experience. This leads to widespread negative sentiment.

Discussions about how he handled civil unrest in Minnesota and COVID lockdowns also draw ire. Voters accuse Walz of cowardice and authoritarianism for allowing riots to continue unchecked and imposing harsh lockdowns in 2020.

His association with controversial figures like Imam Asad Zaman further fuels negative perceptions, raising questions about his judgment. Criticism extends to his stance on gun control, where detractors argue he lies about his military background to advocate for stricter gun laws.

Allegations of fraud in child welfare programs under his oversight have also damaged his reputation, generating significant distrust in his leadership. Overall, discussions place Walz under intense public scrutiny. Voters discuss him mentioning dishonesty, poor leadership, and questionable associations.

Voters also recognize that Walz has increasingly championed progressive causes, particularly in areas like LGBTQ rights, racial justice, and abortion rights. His strong support for protecting access to sex change surgeries for minors, codifying abortion rights, and banning conversion therapy aligns him closely with the progressive base.

Economically, Walz advocates for larger, tax-funded investments in public education, affordable housing, and paid family and medical leave—hallmark issues for progressives. He also backs required free school meals and a child tax credit aimed at reducing child poverty, further signaling his alignment with progressive economic policies.

More Money Doesn’t Improve Education

MIG Reports analysis shows discussions regarding educational policies, such as the free school breakfast and lunch programs, are politically divided. Some praise Walz's efforts as necessary support systems for children. But more conservative voters denounce the program, which mandates free meals regardless of family income, as a socialist overreach and an unnecessary use of tax dollars. This division reflects the broader ideological battle playing out in the narrative surrounding Walz’s governance.

In speeches, Walz consistently emphasizes Education and Families as central to his agenda. He advocates creating opportunities for children and supporting family structures. However, his discussions lack a detailed education strategy, with little specificity on how proposed investments will be managed or how they will correlate with long-term economic growth.

The absence of a cohesive educational and economic strategy raises concerns about the effectiveness and sustainability of his policies. The Casey Foundation ranked Minnesota education #7 in 2021, #9 in 2022, and #18 in 2023 despite increases in public funding. AP News also reported in December of 2023 that Walz’s free school meal program was costing more than expected and, as a result, was unsustainable for the state budget.

2020 Riots Still Anger Americans

Voter discussions on Public Safety are rife with allegations that Walz allowed and even encouraged chaos during the George Floyd protests in 2020. People accuse him of failing to deploy the National Guard to control the riots. They say he instead directed police efforts toward enforcing stringent lockdown rules.

Americans view Walz as a leader who prioritized extreme lockdown enforcement over public safety amid civil unrest. There is significant criticism of his COVID response, with accusations of unjust and overly restrictive measures. The most discussed topics revolve around his enforcement methods—like a snitch line—during lockdowns. Sentiment across these discussions is negative, with frequent comparisons to authoritarian practices and criticisms of his broader political ideology and governance style.

In public speeches, Walz’s approach to Public Safety focuses on gun control measures like red flag laws and universal background checks. These positions align him progressive views on gun limitations.

Foreign Policy and Security Issues

In discussions about Walz’s Foreign Policy, people mention his historical affiliations and travel to China. Voters highlight his extensive travel history to the country, accusing him of having ties to the Chinese Communist Party. These accusations are often linked to a broader distrust of Walz’s foreign policy positions and potential influences on his domestic policy decisions. Sentiment around these allegations is largely negative, often intensifying calls against his candidacy.

Top keywords mentioned with Tim Walz regarding Security Issues include:

• Hamas
• Muslim cleric
• Military service
• Stolen valor
• Antisemitic
• Hitler

The overall sentiment is negative, as people question his honesty, associations, and ability to handle security-related issues effectively.

Walz’s Rhetoric is Increasingly Leftist

Current public discussion of Walz's various policy positions is limited. However, MIG Reports analysis of his speech content confirms general voter perceptions of Walz’s increasingly left-leaning positions.

Healthcare

Walz’s speeches frequently mention Healthcare, initially focusing on access and affordability. Later in his political career, his advocacy expands to emphasize mental health and abortion rights. Despite this, Walz's speeches lack in-depth proposals for healthcare reforms. This gap in his healthcare strategy suggests a reluctance to tackle politically divisive issues, which could be attributed to his tendency to cater to the far left.

Bipartisanship

Over time, Walz's rhetoric shifts, with Bipartisanship giving way to a more direct, occasionally confrontational tone, particularly toward Republican policies. This shift indicates a stronger alignment with progressive stances, especially on issues like climate change, gun control, and social equity.

However, his speeches often omit issues critical to voters such as Immigration Policy, an increasingly significant topic in national discourse. By neglecting immigration reform and border security, Walz aligns himself with the political left who are often accused of advocating open borders.

Environmental Issues

On Environmental Issues, Walz sets ambitious goals, such as achieving 100% clean energy in Minnesota by 2040. This aligns with broader progressive goals focused on combating climate change and promoting sustainable energy.

His focus on Environmental Justice—how these policies impact marginalized communities—is historically limited. With growing importance in progressive circles, any emerging rhetoric from Walz on environmental justice would indicate continued movement to the left.

Rural Issues

Online conversations about Tim Walz characterize him an an increasingly left-leaning, authoritarian figure. When addressing Rural Issues, Walz tends to focus more on agriculture, with less attention on broader challenges such as rural healthcare access, broadband connectivity, and educational disparities. This narrow focus may suggest a limited understanding of the diverse needs of rural communities, which could hinder his ability to effectively serve these constituencies.

Summary

Voter discussions about Walz feature suspicions of dishonesty, poor leadership during crises, and questionable political associations. Public sentiment trends negatively across these themes, presenting Walz as much more progressive than Democrats claim. Many Democratic voters and political analysts seek to position Walz as a Midwesterner with moderate appeal. However, voter discussions and his own history of political advocacy confirms his strongly progressive allegiances.

Glaring gaps in addressing critical issues like immigration, comprehensive healthcare reform, and rural challenges damage Walz’s image among critical voter groups. People seem to understand that Walz’s track record reveals misalignment with important voter issues in favor of catering to the progressive wing of the Democratic base. As a governor, his impact is often seen as limited, with his successes overshadowed by significant failures.

Public sentiment toward Kamala Harris's presidential campaign has become sharply polarized over allegations of using AI-generated images to fake crowd sizes. Conversations reveal distrust and skepticism, across multiple demographic axes, regarding the authenticity of her campaign strategies and her political stances.

Critics say the Harris campaign relies heavily on media manipulation and social media influence, suggesting her support maybe be more manufactured than genuine. TikTok influencers have claimed they were paid to promote the campaign. Other evidence emerged suggesting rally attendees were paid.

About those Harris crowds.... pic.twitter.com/7O8jL46Uoz

— Matt Braynard (@MattBraynard) August 12, 2024

There are allegations the mainstream media shelters her from scrutiny by not demanding press conferences or in-depth interviews. This critique extends to her running mate, Tim Walz, who people accuse of using deceptive narratives to obfuscate his true political intentions.

• Harris’s approval regarding campaign rallies and fundraising has declined in the last week, slipping from 54% and 53% respectively, to 48% and 46% today.

Campaigns Exchange Accusations

Posts from conservative outlets and individuals are more likely to highlight concerns about astroturfed support and fake images. They use these allegations to demonstrate their belief that the Harris campaign is fundamentally dishonest. Social media accelerates the spread of these views, as even Donald Trump posted about it on Truth Social.

This caused back-and-forth allegations between campaigns as the KamalaHQ X account rebutted Trump’s accusations. The Harris campaign also claimed Trump’s rallies are less packed than Harris’s, causing arguments about the pettiness of these political strategies.

1) This is an actual photo of a 15,000-person crowd for Harris-Walz in Michigan

2) Trump has still not campaigned in a swing state in over a week... Low energy? pic.twitter.com/VgTfoMAcuk

— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) August 11, 2024

Meanwhile at @realdonaldtrump’s rally... https://t.co/uZ73w1de7D pic.twitter.com/lhCZvG4KxF

— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) August 10, 2024

There is still some question about whether it is proven the Harris campaign used doctored images. But as with many issues in partisan politics, many choose the narrative and perspective they prefer, without legitimizing any of the opposition’s claims to evidence. While there is significant ire directed at the Harris campaign for being “fake” and “phony,” some on the right still argue it’s an unproductive controversy.

It damages Trump's campaign to claim something is AI when it clearly isn’t. Call me a sellout if you want, but I don't want Trump to lose over this trivial narrative about crowd sizes. He’s surrounded by bad advisors who are pushing this nonsense. We should be focusing on…

— Vivek Ganapathy Ramaswamy (parody) (@VivekRammaswamy) August 11, 2024

General Disbelief in Harris’s Authenticity

Claims about inauthenticity from Harris campaign communications extends to how Americans view her as a politician. Many criticize her communication style and public visibility, saying she relies heavily on scripts and canned remarks to mask her lack of knowledge. People accuse her of being disingenuous and phony, further cementing perceptions that she is not a competent politician.

Harris supporters downplay allegations of faked images and inauthenticity. They instead focus on the "joy" and “vibes” of the campaign, praising her as a refreshing alternative to Trump. They claim to support her policies, though many cannot articulate what those policies are. These voters often frame criticisms as partisan attacks, saying opposing Trump takes precedence over accusations about campaign tactics.

“Why are ya’ll voting for Kamala Harris?”

“I want to keep access to my bank accounts. I would like to keep making money, I don’t want to be some man’s object I really don’t. The whole thing with Project 2025 is terrifying.” pic.twitter.com/Lkb6XJLHp9

— TENET Media (@watchTENETnow) August 10, 2024

Supporters insist the enthusiasm and turnout for Harris are genuine. These proponents highlight the presence of witnesses, journalists, and photographers at her events as evidence. They call accusations a desperate tactic by opponents to undermine Harris’s rising popularity, claiming fear and defensiveness from Republicans.

Demographic Reactions

The demographic breakdown further complicates Harris’s image. Older voters tend to be more critical of her, emphasizing fears about her socialist tendencies and lack of transparency. They invoke instances of Harris “flip-flopping” on issues, saying she merely seeks to garner favor. For these voters, use of AI-altered images is indicative of a broader pattern of manipulation and dishonesty.

Younger voters are more split. Some prefer to praise Harris’s progressive policies but are also wary of the integrity issues these allegations present. Many younger voters raise questions about digital ethics and authenticity. These topics resonate strongly with a generation attuned to digital literacy, media manipulation, and the implications of technology on politics.

Gender also plays a role in shaping perceptions. Female voters, especially those identifying as feminists, often support Harris for her symbolic significance as a potential female president. Yet, they are not immune to concerns about the campaign's authenticity. Many female voters express a desire for a transparent and honest campaign, fearing any proven deceit undermines broader efforts for gender equality in leadership.

Online conversations suggest the issue of child trafficking is becoming politicized with partisan disagreements about Biden-Harris open borders policies. Voters express disgust at what is occurring at the border, viewing a leadership change as increasingly necessary. In states like Arizona, Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake is voicing urgent voter concerns about cartel activity and drug and child trafficking in a way that Democrats are not. This is gaining her approval among increasingly concerned Americans.

Kari Lake, Change Candidate

Kari Lake is a Republican running for Kyrsten Sinema’s Senate seat in Arizona. She is often mentioned in conversations about the border and child trafficking as someone who sincerely cares. Voter sentiment is overwhelmingly positive toward Lake on these issues as frustration with Democrats mounts.

Lake regularly speaks out about border issues voters prioritize, while her opponent, Ruben Gallego, is deafeningly silent.

.@KariLake: “The biggest Human Smuggling, Drug Trafficking, Child Trafficking operation is underway here in Arizona...

and our Government is partnering with the Cartels. Yes, I said that.”@BrandonStraka @RealWalkAway pic.twitter.com/bNuICYhduR

— Kari Lake (@KariLake) June 14, 2022

Voters believe in her commitment to implementing stronger border security measures that will protect children and combat cartel trafficking. Conversations mention her with phrases like “close the borders to prevent more human trafficking” and “protect children from all forms of abuse.” Voters in Arizona and nationwide support candidates like Kari Lake who promise stringent reforms.

Lake, who is known as a fighter who does not back down, uses this to her advantage on cartel and trafficking issues. People view her as dedicated, willing to fight, and genuinely caring. Public sentiment toward Lake's border efforts is overwhelmingly positive.

There is a strong belief that she prioritizes eradicating child trafficking, unlike her Democratic counterparts. Many convey appreciation for her vocal stance and proposed policies aimed at tackling this issue directly.

The narrative around Lake is one of hope and support, portraying her as a figure willing to take robust action where others have faltered. Discussions about Lake reveal optimism, portraying her as a proactive leader capable of implementing strong border policies Democrats are unwilling to enact.

Outrage and Urgency

Outrage dominates discussions about the Biden-Harris administration's border policies, particularly regarding negligence and dismissal of child trafficking. Voters regularly talk of “open borders,” voicing frustration with the administration’s unwillingness to enforce border security measures.

Americans accuse the administration of exacerbating drug trafficking, human trafficking—specifically child trafficking—by ignoring border laws. Sentiment is overwhelmingly negative, with criticism directed at Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in her role as "border czar."

Accusations of incompetence and failure dominate conversations. People link Democrat failures to rises in crime, drug-related deaths, and unchecked border crossings. Sen. Chuck Grassley is drafting a Congressional Review Act to block the Biden-Harris administration from further enabling dangerous trafficking practices.

The connection between drug and human trafficking is another major concern. Voters express alarm and urgency about fentanyl and trafficking children streaming across the border via Mexican cartels.

An increasingly dangerous fentanyl supply in the U.S. generates fear across political lines as more Americans are impacted by drug addiction, overdose, and death. Many also attribute increased drug trafficking to lax border policies.

Rampant trafficking amplifies critiques of the Biden-Harris approach to border security. Voters demand more stringent actions to combat both drug and human trafficking.

DOJ sued HHS contractor Southwest Key 4 repeatedly turning blind eye 2 employee sex abuse of migrant children HHS’ UC Program Rule adds 2 the problem by weakening employee vetting / HHS even tried 2 block SW Key frm answering my oversight requests Congress must seek reforms

— Chuck Grassley (@ChuckGrassley) July 20, 2024

Failing Upward

Discussions reveal a broader theme of political responsibility and blame, with voters divided along partisan lines. Terms like "Democrat policies," "Republican solutions," and NGOs frequently appear. Politics divides many opinions on how best to address border issues and trafficking.

Partisan debate intensifies the emotional engagement and urgency in public discourse. Voters say they feel betrayed by the Biden-Harris administration's failures. Further complicating this issue is the involvement of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Accusations emerge of taxpayer-funded groups enabling Democratic border policies voters are starting to abhor.

EXCLUSIVE: I spent four months investigating the web of NGOs facilitating the Biden Administration's migrant crisis. These taxpayer-funded groups are pulling in billions of dollars and lavishing themselves with salaries and bonuses.

Here's how they're cashing in. 🧵

— Maddie Rowley (@Maddie_Rowley_) May 13, 2024

Some discuss the broader socio-economic impacts of immigration policies like inflation and resource scarcity, adding to their frustration. This deepens negative sentiment toward VP Harris, whose role as the Border Czar places responsibility at her feet. A lack of evidence that she took any action and financial support for NGOs from the Biden-Harris administration, will likely worsen sentiment.

On Aug. 6, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris announced Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate. Many voters speculate Harris’s strategy was aimed at solidifying support with voters in the Midwest. Democrats are emphasizing both progressive and moderate credentials to appeal across the party’s spectrum.

MIG Reports data shows headwinds for Harris in the three days following Walz’s announcement as the Democratic VP pick:

• Harris continues to lose ground nationally against Donald Trump
• Walz’s individual support dropped from leading J.D. Vance by 3%, to trailing him by 1%.

Negativity Toward Gov. Tim Walz

On the ideological left, there is a limited amount of support for Harris-Walz. Leftists among these groups dissect Harris's campaign decisions for their shaky alignment with progressive values. Progressives express skepticism about her commitment to systemic change, often pointing to her past as a prosecutor and her perceived establishment ties.

Democrats and progressives who approve of Walz express hope that he can strengthen Harris’s appeal to rural and Midwestern voters while reinforcing progressive policies. However, this hope seems largely negated by voter sentiment in Midwest states like Wisconsin.

• Despite an initial boost on Aug. 6, Kamala Harris’s approval in Wisconsin has since dropped to net -1% relative to her support prior to adding Walz to the ticket.
• In Ohio, Harris saw a 4% bump with her VP announcement, which dropped back down to 46% in the following days.
• Similarly in Michigan Harris has not held her VP bump, dropping back down from 49% on Aug. 6 to 47% today.

Moderates and centrists are a challenge for Harris, creating a need to prevent herself from being perceived as far-left. Critical issues like the economy, border, and national security draw sharp negativity from important voter groups.

Despite the Harris campaign attempting to frame Walz as a moderate who appeals to both progressives and centrists, MIG Reports data shows online sentiment is predominantly negative. The campaign’s framing effort is often met with skepticism and outright rejection. Dissatisfied voters are quick to highlight Walz’s record as extremely far left.

Many Midwestern voters also highlight geographic and cultural rifts. They claim coastal democrats have misunderstood Midwestern moderates. They view Walz’s policies as reshaping Minnesota into a facsimile of California's liberal agenda. This comparison highlights growing divides on the left between far left progressives and moderate and blue-collar Democrats.

Top issues causing negativity toward Walz include:

• Walz role in allowing and possibly abetting BLM riots in Minneapolis in 2020
• His position on transgender issues and child sex-change surgeries
• Concerning ties Walz has with China and travel there as a teacher
• Widespread allegations of stolen valor
• His extremely progressive immigration policies
• Walz’s poor fiscal record of government over-spending in Minnesota
• His stringent enforcement of 2020 COVID lockdowns

National approval for Walz has been volatile in the last month. In mid-July, Walz saw approval highs of 48% and a low of 37%.

• Since being chosen as the Democratic VP candidate, Walz's approval has dropped from 49% to 46%.
• A month ago, online mentions of Tim Walz only averaged 38 per day. With his announcement as Harris’ running mate, mentions spiked to 23,936, dropping back to around 10,000 in the following days.

Voter Group Reactions

Democrats

Among Democrats, many highlight Tim Walz's legislative achievements and progressive credentials. Proponents celebrate his moves to provide universal free school meals, legalize cannabis, enact carbon-free electricity mandates, and establish paid family leave policies.

Walz's supporters argue his executive experience and progressive policies align with Kamala Harris's vision for America. They spotlight his efforts in sectors like education, climate change, and healthcare.

National Democratic figures like Nancy Pelosi and David Axelrod have defended Walz, indicating his acceptance among influential party members. However, these support pillars do not translate to more moderate Democratic voters.

Moderate Democrats express concern about Walz’s progressive track record. They worry about the backlash against his handling of BLM protests and his controversial COVID "snitch line." Walz's advocacy for defunding police and support for youth gender surgeries also alienates centrist Democrats in swing states who view these policies as too radical.

Republicans

Predictably, Republican and conservative voters are sharply critical of Walz. They decry his role during BLM protests in Minnesota, accusing him of allowing riots and chaos. Conservatives view Walz as overly radical, emphasizing his ties to socialist policies and his progressive stance on LGBTQ issues.

Republicans suggest Walz solidifies a leftward shift on the Democratic ticket. This, they argue, is contrary to the values of mainstream America.

Much of the discourse among Republicans—with growing media acknowledgement—outlines allegations of repeated stolen valor by Walz. Evidence has emerged that Wal retired from the National Guard to avoid deployment and misrepresented his rank and service record. This scandal elicits strong negativity from veterans, voters who value support for the U.S. military, and moderate demographics who emphasize valor and honor in service.

Independents and moderates

Some Independents appreciate Walz's tangible policy achievements and his Midwestern roots. They hope this can help the Democratic ticket gain traction in critical swing states. However, support among those who would have appreciated Walz's military background wavers with more information about his alleged stolen valor.

Many are also concerned about how he managed 2020 protests and view his policies as too extreme. His COVID lockdown policies also generate disapproval—especially in discussion about creating a "snitch line" to report anyone violating lockdown orders. These are major sticking points for moderates and Independents, could jeopardize support.

Geographic Voter Groups

Geographically, the reaction to Walz varies. In Minnesota and neighboring Midwestern states, his candidacy elicits strong responses, both positive and negative. These regions have witnessed his governorship firsthand, causing many to express dissatisfaction.

In contrast, coastal states inclined towards more progressive policies seem to respond more favorably to Walz. They align with progressive values but believe Walz could shore up moderate appeal.

In traditionally conservative regions, especially the South and parts of the Midwest, criticism reigns. These regions frame Walz’s policies as emblematic of excessive government intervention and radicalism.

• In swing states, Walz does not meaningfully boost Kamala Harris’s support.
• Since Walz’s announcement as VP pick, Kamala Harris has lost ground against Donald Trump in swing states, going from a 50%-46% Trump lead to 52%-44%.

Voters commenting on the Senate race in Wisconsin between Democratic incumbent Tammy Baldwin and a soon-decided Republican challenger are mostly discussing the economy and establishment politics.

Republican challenger Eric Hovde is the favorite to win the GOP Senate primary on Aug. 13. With the economy and immigration two of the top voter issues, MIG Reports data indicates Hovde leads Baldwin with 52% support to Baldwin’s 48% as of Aug. 9.

Against this backdrop, conversations among Wisconsin voters focus on:

• The impact of illegal immigration on the economy
• Workers whose jobs are being threatened by competition from migrants
• Jobs threatened by changes in certain industries
• Anti-establishment sentiments among Wisconsinites

Establishment Workhorse vs Outsider

Baldwin's political career started in 1986 when she was 24. She served six consecutive terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, prior to her Senate election win in 2012. Her political career has been almost as long as President Joe Biden’s, roiling the growing number of anti-establishment voters.

Baldwin is strongly aligned with progressive values and the Biden-Harris administration, voting with them 95.5% of the time. This is a prominent theme generating criticism from those who are unhappy with national politics.

Critics link her to social and economic woes like:

• Rising costs from inflation
• Homelessness
• The decline of American cities
• Concerns about international conflicts
• Rampant illegal immigration
• Drug addiction and deaths

Voters also criticize her for being disconnected from her constituents. They see her lifestyle and financial interests as an indication she favors the wealthy over the working-class. Wisconsin’s economic situation is another focal point, with mixed opinions on Baldwin’s role in recent manufacturing gains and broader economic trends.

In contrast, Eric Hovde is seen as a political outsider bringing "fresh perspective" and "new ideas." He appeals to voters who are disillusioned with traditional politics. Many view Hovde's lack of establishment ties as an advantage. They say it allows him to challenge the status quo and offer innovative solutions.

Hovde's anti-establishment stance, emphasizing independence, anti-corruption, and reform, resonates with many Wisconsinites. They want to disrupt political cronyism and inefficiency, looking to Hovde for greater transparency and accountability.

Economic Pain for Wisconsinites

Inflation is a prominent topic as voters criticize government spending and economic policies. Wisconsinites express concerns about the rising cost of living, specifically citing high prices for essentials such as gas and groceries. Some blame the Biden-Harris administration for uncontrolled spending that exacerbates inflation. Others argue inflation is a global issue not solely impacted by domestic policies.

Sentiment toward Eric Hovde leans positive on the economy. Conversations are growing about his passion for building homes for families and children in need. Many see this as positive and relatable for those facing economic hardship. There is some skepticism of Hovde’s background in finance, though many see it as a positive. They appreciate his return to Wisconsin despite living an affluent life in southern California.

Voters also talk about taxes, debating the implications of tax cuts and increases. More conservative voters advocate for tax cuts to stimulate the economy and reduce financial strain on families. Left leaning voters call for higher taxes on the wealthy and large corporations to address fiscal deficits and income inequality.

Sentiment Trends and Voter Impact

On inflation and tax evasion scandals, sentiment is extremely negative. People are frustrated with current economic policies and political figures they view as corrupt. This coincides with wider anti-establishment sentiment in Wisconsin. Voters want tax cuts, deregulation, and fiscal conservatism to combat economic challenges.

Undecided and moderate voters seem particularly influenced by discussions about practical economic impacts. Concerns about day-to-day expenses, fairness in taxation, and financial transparency are central to their decision-making process. These voters display a tendency to seek balanced and pragmatic solutions, rather than extreme partisan positions.

Inflation and taxes have sustained voter attention over time as fundamental concerns. Temporary spikes in discussion often occur around specific events or revelations, such as scandals involving financial misconduct by candidates. However, these spikes tend to increase a consistently high discussion volume.

State of GDP

In 2024, Wisconsin's manufacturing sector remains the largest contributor to GDP, generating $55.19 billion, but is experiencing a decline of 1.3%. The real estate and rental and leasing sectors follow, contributing $38.39 billion with minimal growth of 0.2%. Healthcare and social assistance is grew 1.6%, contributing $32.02 billion, reflecting increased demand for healthcare services.

High-growth sectors include:

• Professional, scientific, and technical services: 6.3% growth rate
• Arts, entertainment, and recreation: 11.3% growth rate, likely due to a post-COVID rebound

Challenges are evident in sectors like finance and insurance. These face a significant decline of 1.7%, potentially due to regulatory changes or market saturation. Wholesale trade is also experiencing a decline of 1.0%, likely influenced by broader economic trends impacting supply chains.

Employment Sector Trends

The employment landscape in Wisconsin is diverse, with healthcare and social assistance employing 450,155 people, modest 0.2% growth. Manufacturing employs 446,288 people but is experiencing a slight decline of 0.3%. Retail trade, with 392,305 employees, is growing by 0.9%.

Key growth sectors include:

Administration, Business Support, and Waste Management Services:

• Employs 215,582 people
• Significant growth of 2.9%

Transportation and Warehousing:

• Employs 195,575 people
• Growth of 2.3%

Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services:

• Employs 172,697 people
• Growth of 2.3%

Information:

• Fastest-growing sector at 4.0%
• Employs 93,381 people

Sectors like accommodation and food services (239,268 employees) and construction (156,524 employees) are seeing slight declines. The finance and insurance sector is also down by 0.4%, despite employing 171,785 workers. Other services (except public administration) and wholesale trade show minimal changes, with growth rates of -0.6% and 0.6%, respectively.

Prioritizing Party Over Posterity

Wisconsin voters are also concerned about family issues like education. They discuss the need for increased funding and better resources for schools, saying this is essential for high-quality education. However, the public is divided on the best way to achieve these goals.

Eric Hovde has approval from those supporting local control and accountability. His outsider status and focus on reform resonates with voters who believe fresh ideas and local leadership are crucial to addressing education challenges.

Hovde's approach contrasts sharply with Tammy Baldwin’s, whose support for COVID lockdowns draws criticism. People say she approved of destroying social cohesion, the economy, and children's education. Her alignment with broader government intervention is criticized by those who feel these measures exacerbate existing problems.

Lockdowns Damaged Education

Many criticize Baldwin and other pro-lockdown politicians for dealing a significant blow to education. They point out COVID restrictions negatively impacted academic proficiency among Wisconsin students. There were significant declines in both English Language Arts (ELA) and Math.

Pre-COVID proficiency levels in ELA and Math were 42.4% and 43.8%, respectively, in 2018.These figures dropped sharply post-2020, hitting a low of 33.7% for ELA and 33.6% for Math in 2021.

Although proficiency partially recovered by 2023, reaching 39.2% in ELA and 41.1% in Math, these levels remain below pre-COVID standards. Lockdowns exacerbated existing achievement gaps related to race and socioeconomic status. This created an urgent need for targeted interventions to support recovery and close these disparities.